Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
. smith: mr. speaker, h.r. 6620, the former presidents protection act of 2012, amends federal law to uniformerly provide lifetime secret service protection to all of america's former presidents. i want to thank the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, for sponsoring this commonsense bipartisan legislation. america has a responsibility to protect its presidents and its families and not simply while they serve in office. we also have a duty to ensure the ongoing safety of those who serve in america's highest elected office after they leave office. in 1958 congress first authorized secret service protection for former presidents, which was limited to a reasonable period of time after a president leaves office. congress expanded this to lifetime protection in 1965. but in 1994, congress once again limited secret service protection for former presidents. this time to 10 years after a president leaves office. this 10-year restriction applied to presidents who took office after january 1, 1997. the role of the former president has changed
on the bill they just debated, changing federal energy efficiency laws. we'll take you live next to the capital, the chair and co-chair of the democratic caucus, just starting a briefing talking about the fiscal cliff and jobs. it's live here on c-span. >> and continues to preach the kind of message that i think the nation needs, one of compromise but one of assurity that we are going to be looking out tore the interest of the middle class and the protection of social security, medicare and medicaid for the people who are in such desperate need of those great programs that are the hallmark of our country. we have repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of hav
of employees he has to less than 50 so he won't be subject to penalties under the 2010 health law. so right now the federal government is keeping him from offering jobs. that hurts the people who need jobs and who would be happy to be on a payroll where they would be putting their own contributions into social security and medicare. increasing taxes means less growth and fewer jobs, and that's not balanced. three years ago i made a pledge to oppose tax increases. i made that pledge to the citizens i serve and to no one else, and i made it because tax increases will hurt them. when jen, the owner of la petite cuisine in new york says the best thing i can do is give her a break from high taxes, i believe her. i ran for congress to help jen and all the small business people like her who are the engines of job creation. i ran for congress to help all the people who need employers like jen to hire them. these good people deserve better than temporary fixes. they deserve a plan that solves our economic problems for the long term. they deserve a plan that goes beyond politics and shows a commitment to
requirements. under current law, financial institutions are required to provide annual privacy is notices that the explain their practices. they are required to mail those notices regardless of whether or not that information sharing practice has changed. these annual mailings cost millions each year and do not provide the consumers with new information if the practice hasn't change thsmed will require an institution to provide annual privacy notices only if they have changed their privacy rules. this will eliminate an unnecessary burden for our financial institutions. i would like to thank mr. luetkemeyer and mr. sherman for their leadership on this issue and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: i thank the gentlelady from west virginia for yielding to me and i yield myself such time as i may consume in support of h.r. 5817, the eliminate privacy notify -- notice confusion act. i want to thank representative luetkemeyer for his work in introducing this bill. i've enjoyed working with him on it. mr. -- ms. speak
in the courthouse when d.n.a. started coming into be used at the courthouse. prior to that many law enforcement and prosecutors had to rely on blood samples and fingerprints, but once d.n.a. came in and we learned everybody has a unique genetic makeup and it can be connected and traced to perpetrators of crime when they commit a crime, especially in sexual assault cases. and convictions have gone up. the evidence is better. the proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much more available in d.n.a. cases. in 1985, there was a 13-year-old girl named lavenia masters. she lived in dallas, texas. she told her folks good night. she went to her bedroom which should be, mr. speaker, the safest place on earth for children -- went to sleep and during the middle of the night she was woken up by an outlaw putting a knife to her throat and he sexually assaulted her. then he snuck away in the darkness of the night. that was in 1985. she went to the hospital. her parents took care of her medical needs. d.n.a. evidence was taken from her. it was given to the law enforcement authorities, but that d.n.a. evidence from
to take these young women when they are interacting with law enforcement because a lot of them find themselves into prostitution and get treated like perpetrators as opposed to victims. this is the psychology of a perpetrator but they are victims and we have to get law enforcement and our judicial system to treat these women as victims and put them in a setting to pull themselves away from drug addition. >> in a minute, politico is -- politico is going to ask you some questions. one of the questions that has come in, who is the best leader in washington, d.c.? >> robert griffin, iii. >> why did the majority of americans reject the republican party in the recent election? >> it was an election and it was a very close election. if you look at the nims and the differences between the two. i think the republican party can do a better job of limited government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. t
, many of them have american children. yet without any way, currently, of getting right with the law. what we need to do in immigration reform is require that people who are here illegally get right with the law rather than prevent them from getting right with the law. which is what we do currently. so again, while stem immigration is very important, my colleagues are being asked in a closed proto sess to weigh that with the issue of immigrants from the ukraine and albania, at the same time the bill could increase, will increase, the number of illegal immigrants in this country, perhaps increasing the number of illegal immigrants will redouble the efforts of this congress to address this issue but given the enormous dwention of the problem already and the complete lack of consideration of any meaningful immigration bill by this congress to solve our broken immigration system, inle not holding my breath. the zero sum bill on the floor asks us to weight one class of immigrants at the expense of another. in effect, trying to play politics and avoid solving our imdepration crisis. -- and
in the u.s. senate to pass important legislation, including the grand rudman deficit law. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician. he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second, fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good. he had the carriage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate which talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he expressed his hopes for the future of the senate, saying it is a special place with special people. i hope in the coming years that the i
said in a law that they would pay that money back in a trust fund. but there is suspicion on whether that is rarely ever going to happen. that feeds into their concern about what will happen to social security. is it going to be changed in ways that affect the benefits? host: all of the calls to simplify the tax code, to streamline it, and that may certainly mean to itemize the credits of that take place on the tax returns. guest: the complexity of the tax system is a huge problem. everyone from the irs on down to congress and the industry out there, if you will, the financial accounting industry, everyone recognizes is an enormous problem and causes people to pay a lot more than they otherwise would. most people do not do their own taxes anymore because they are so complex. they rely on software that is kind of a black box. it is hard to know how the tax system works anymore. people do not have as much of an incentive to take a deduction if they do not know it is there. and the software is what they are depending on. host: does simplifying the tax code as necessarily mean lessening
nato is through continued development of democracy and the rule of law. there have been increasing pressure on the president to resign prior to the constitutional end of his term in october of 2013. while the new majority may see this as a logical next step to finalizing the transfer of power, attempting to have them give up their position -- the prosecutor's office arrested three officers of the government charged with unspecified abuses of power. georgia's made enormous power over the past two months. progress which very few predicted would require. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's been 141 days, that's how long it's been since the house agriculture committee on a bipartisan basis passed the farm bill by a vote of 35-1. that's th
that if it could not pass that two-part test, then it should not become a law in the united states of america. he passed a comprehensive energy plan off the floor of this house. protected social security, advanced so many other issues. a in my opinion, tip o'neill was the elder -- was the albert einstein of politics. he knew what it took in order to make this institution work. he knew what it took to reach across the aisle, to find people of good will, to make this chamber work and to advance the agenda for this country. so for for me, it's a great honor to be here because buildings, as we name them, also embody that person. it is my hope that as people walk in and out of this building for the 21st century, that they think about who tip o'neill was. they think about, yes, how much he loved political war, but at the same time he brought his own personal warmth to that, that it was not separated here on the house floor. it is my hope in naming this building perhaps this process this great institution, can be an nated by his great legacy and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempo
to a greater extent than existed before. we have greater cooperation and coordination among all levels of law enforcement. there's a greater level of respect among the private sector parts and the public sector. but cybersecurity remains, in my judgment, the lagging indicator and the lagging response. i would hope -- i would hope that partisanship be thrown aside. i would hope that fear of the government -- although i understand that well and i have been a proponent of that of an oversized government and overly strong government, but fear of that will be tempered in the sense that we understand the threat to all of us, our standard of living in so many different ways is real and that we right now have the greatest minds working on cyber. last thought is this. if any young person is looking for a job or a career for the rest of his or her life, start training in cybersecurity. we need to do more in terms of educational program. we need to do more of training. china is training a lot more people in cybersecurity than we are. it's not because they have a larger population. it's because they're d
extended all of those changes in 2010. that's the law of the land still today. tax policy has been exactly the same over this continuum. what has changed, mr. speaker, what has changed is the spending. the reason deficits have grown not one, not two, not three but almost four times larger than the previous record deficit in american history is not because tax policy has changed, it hasn't. it's because federal spending policy has changed. and that's what we have to get our arms around here in this body. what i show going forward, mr. speaker, put a little square around the annual budget deficits that have been run during the first four years of the obama administration, but i also project what the congressional budget office believes, that's a nonpartisan budget planning group we have here on capitol hill, what they believe is in store for us in the future if we continue under current policy. -h tsh-that's trillion dollar deficits going out for years to come. the problem is not tax policy, mr. speaker, the problem is spending policy. can we improve tax policy? you better believe it. mr. sp
's health care law and how that can impact the possibility of -- [inaudible] being on the table during this discussion? >> no specific discussion of -- there was no specific discussion of how the health -- the new health plan will affect medicare or will affect the economy. there's no specific discussion on that. there wasn't any lengthy discussion on the establishment of the exchanges. the focus was on what has just been reported. and that is that the states are willing to share the sacrifice. we don't want to take it all. but we're willing to do our part. we don't need shifting. we don't need cuts on the federal level that merely require tax increases on the state level. and so there was the unity by all of these governors and by our efforts not as has been pointed out, to get too specific on any one area but to offer our willingness to go forward and aid and assist with thoughts, ideas and suggestions. but there wasn't a detail-specific discussion about federal health care and the impact that it would have on medicare cuts or the impact that it would have on the economy in general.
can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody's income. everybody's. that means that 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses wouldn't see their income taxes go up by a single dime. 98% of americans, 97% of small businesses wouldn't see their taxes go up by a single dime. even the wealthiest americans would still get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. so it's not like folks who make more than $250,000 aren't getting a tax break too. they're getting a tax break on the first $250,000 like everybody else. families and small businesses would therefore be able to enjoy some peace of mindheading into christmas and heading into the new year. and it would give us more time than next year to work together -- more time, then, next year, to work together ton ona plan to bring down deficit, streamline the tax system, and to do it in a balanced way, including asking the wealthiest americans to pay late more so we can still invest in things like education and training and science and research. now i know some of this may sound familiar to you be
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15